Credit: UNICEF/Michele Sibilon
By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Aug 21 2025 – After taking oath of office in December 2016 as Secretary-General, Mr. Antonio Guterres described the eradication of sexual offenses by UN peacekeeping and all other UN personnel as the first item on his reform agenda.
During his first year in office in 2017, he convened a high-level meeting on combatting sexual exploitation and abuse and established a task force to address sexual harassment within the UN system.
But the saga of inaction continues and the situation on the SEA, as the phenomenon of the Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) is acronymized by the UN to avoid saying clearly what it stands for, remains totally appalling and unacceptable, eroding the credibility of the world’s most universal global body.
The UN’s so-called new approach to sexual offenses by UN personnel has proven to be little more than a public relations campaign marked by cosmetic adjustments that fail to address the systemic flaws that sustain a culture of impunity.
Helplessness of the UN is pitifully described in its latest report covering the year 2024 when it says that “Since 2017, we have continued to devote considerable attention and effort to improving the way to addresses the issue … However, challenges persist, and we remain committed to addressing these.” Nearly a decade has gone by and still there is no perceptible result in putting its own house in order by punishing the perpetrators and compensating the victims.
The latest UN report helplessly admits that “Since 2017, there has been an increase in the number of incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse reported …” It continues to share the bad news informing that “In 2024 alone, 675 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse were reported in connection with United Nations staff and related personnel (292) and implementing partners (383), with 27 per cent of those allegations involving child victims.”
It is shocking that more than one-fourth of the victims are children. What kind of child-abuser staff the UN authorities are recruiting, supervising and monitoring?
The UN report says, “Since 2017, senior United Nations officials have reported on their personal responsibility to address sexual exploitation and abuse through annual attestations in their compacts or management letters.”
And, unfortunately, the same report shockingly admits that “However, alarmingly, in 2024, the survey on protection from sexual exploitation and abuse revealed a significant rise in distrust towards leadership, with 6 per cent respondents in the United Nations system (approximately 3,700 individuals) expressing a lack of confidence in the ability of leaders to address sexual exploitation and abuse, doubling from 3 per cent in 2023.”
It is so hugely embarrassing for the leadership of the UN!
Its much-touted zero-tolerance and no-impunity policies have not improved the situation, according to longtime UN watchers. Zero-tolerance has become synonymous with zero-effectiveness. Zero-tolerance policy is applied by the UN system entities as if they are using a zebra-crossing on a street which does not have any traffic lights.
The labyrinthine rules, regulations, procedures, channels of communication of the UN make the mockery of the due-process and timely justice. These have been taken advantage of by the perpetrators time and again.
Unjust UN policies and practices have, over decades, resulted in a culture of impunity for sexual “misconduct” ranging from breaches of UN rules to grave crimes. As most of the SEA incidents happen at the field levels, nationalities and personal equations play a big role in delaying or denying justice.
The UN takes credit by underscoring that “Our approach, which prioritizes the rights and dignity of victims, remains a key objective of the Secretary General’s strategy. Efforts are ongoing to ensure victims have a voice and better access to assistance and support.” How about victims’ access to justice and due process?
The victim-centred approach of the UN in handling SEA cases has been manipulated by the perpetrators and their organizational colleagues to detract attention from their seriousness. Not only should the victims get the utmost attention, so should the abusers because upholding of the justice is also UN’s responsibility.
Also, UN watchers become curious whenever media publish such SEA related reports, the UN authorities invariably mentions the concerned staff is on leave or administrative leave. When these cases are in the public domain, the abusers are merrily enjoying the leave with full pay, even during the world body’s on-going dire liquidity crisis.
It is also known that during the leave the abusers have tried to settle the matter with the victims or their families with lucrative temptations. The leave has also been used to wipe off the evidence of the crime. These have happened in several cases with the full knowledge of the supervisors.
What a travesty of the victim-centred approach!
The head of the UN peace operations where the SEA cases take place should be asked by the Secretary-General to explain the occurrence as a part of his or her direct responsibility. Unless such drastic measures are taken the SEA will continue in the UN system.
Another unexpectable dimension of the victim-centred approach is that the abuser-peacekeepers are sent back home for dispensation of justice as per the agreement between the troops contributing countries (TCC) and the UN. Sending the perpetrators home for action by national authorities is one of the biggest reasons for the continuation of SEA in the peace operations.
The victim is not present in that kind of varied national military justice situation, and no evidence are available except UN-cleared reports to show or suppress the extent of abuse.
Again, a travesty of justice supported by the upholder of the global rule of law!
The UN Secretary-General would be well advised to propose to the Security Council a change in the clause of the agreement that UN signs with the TCCs which incorporates for repatriation of abuser-peacekeepers to their home countries. If a TCC refuse to do so, the agreement will not be signed.
A functional, quick-justice global tribunal should be set up with the mandate to try the peacekeepers as decided by the UN. If the International Criminal Court (ICC) can try heads of state or government for crimes against humanity, why can’t the UN peacekeepers be tried for SEA?
That would be a true victim-centred approach!
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations; Initiator of the UNSCR 1325 as the President of the UN Security Council in March 2000; Chairman of the UN General Assembly’s Main Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters and Founder of the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace (GMCoP)
IPS UN Bureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);
